Free Speech in Canada

This link was sent to me by Steve Boissoin, the Canadian pastor who has been prosecuted (or shall we say, persecuted) for what he wrote in a letter to his local newspaper.

The link goes to an article written by Nigel Hannaford who has been a journalist for over 30 years and serves "on the editorial board of the Calgary Hearld. Mr. Hannaford writes,

Free speech is a core Canadian value, an essential element in a free and prosperous society, and it is significantly endangered by the growing body of unchallenged precedent that has been accumulated by an agendadriven HRC system. Canadians are becoming unsure of what words may safely be said and which may not. Debate on vital matters of public policy has been chilled, as valuable voices are silenced along with those of marginal utility.

Hate speech laws sound admirable at first, but they have a way (in Britain, Australia, Canada, etc.) of becomming anti-free-speech-laws. Americans would be foolish to think it can't happen here.

Lawsuit against Zondervan

According to WoodTV 8 in Grand Rapids, MI:

Christian publisher Zondervan is facing a $60 million federal lawsuit filed by a man who claims he and other homosexuals have suffered based on what the suit claims is a misinterpretation of the Bible.

The lawsuit centers on the translation of arsenokoitai in First Corinthians 6:9. Bradley Fowler, the man bringing the lawsuit, says “Zondervan Bibles published in 1982 and 1987 use the word homosexuals among a list of those who are "wicked" or "unrighteous" and won't inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

Fowler wants and apology and $60 million for his “emotional duress and mental instability.”

According to A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich (a standard Greek lexicon) “arsenokoites” (arsenokoitai is a plural form) is “a male who practices homosexuality.”

Paul may have coined this word from two words that appear together in Leviticus 20:13 of the Septuagint (an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament which was popular in Paul’s time). It says, “Whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both committed abomination, let them die the death, they are guilty.”

From a scholarly perspective, Mr. Fowler’s complaint is groundless. From a First Amendment perspective the lawsuit should be groundless as well. It is not only disturbing that Zondervan has to defend itself against such a frivolous lawsuit, but it should be a concern to all Americans who believe in freedom that Mr. Fowler wants the government, i.e. the courts, to rule on what is acceptable in a Bible translation. (Hat tip: Mitch H.)

Gus Booth and the IRS

According to OneNewsNow, Pastor Gus Booth of Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minnesota, could be in trouble with the Internal Revenue Service.

Booth preached a sermon encouraging his congregation to vote against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when Clinton was still actively in the Democratic presidential race. He used scripture to outline why both candidates were out of line for supporting abortion and homosexuality.

According to an IRS tax guide churches, "…must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office…"

Why, then, is it apparently OK with the IRS for Rick Warren to have candidate Barack Obama actually speak in his church, but not OK for Gus Booth to preach on biblical issues and tie them to specific political candidates?

And why does the IRS persecute Gus Booth but ignore Jeremiah Wright for over 20 years?
Stanley Kurtz commented on Jeremiah Wright’s “Trumpet” magazine saying,

While the majority of Trumpet's articles weave radical politics into a religious framework, some are purely political. For example, the April 2006 issue features a column entitled "Demand Impeachment Now!" The author pointedly refuses to call
Bush "president," merely referring to him as the "resident" of the White House
(and therefore as "Resident Bush"). Another piece taunts Vice President Cheney
for his shooting accident and ends, "America, it's time for regime change."
Neither piece has so much as a religious veneer. (WeeklyStandard)

Before 1776 Britain used taxes as a means of squelching free speech. The IRS has been allowed to do the same thing today. Not only is this selective enforcement of the IRS code unconstitutional, but the part of the tax code that threatens churches is itself unconstitutional and needs to be repealed.

The death of free speech at the U.N.

In FrontPage today, Robert Spencer argues that "Free Speech dies at the U.N.:

The war against free speech is advancing rapidly: Associated Press reported Thursday that “Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council.”Council President Doru-Romulus Costea explained that religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense…This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” Henceforth only religious scholars would be permitted to broach them.

“While Costea’s ban applies to all religions,” AP explained, “it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.” The ban came after a heated session on Monday, when the representative of the Association for World Education (AWE), in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced female genital mutilation, the penalty of stoning for adultery and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law.

And yet, millions of Americans still support dumping millions of American tax dollars into the U.N. cesspool!

Freedom of speech and churches

Churches have passively given up their freedom of speech and freedom of religion when it comes to addressing the pressing political issues of our time.

I certainly don't think pastor's should turn their worship services into political forums, but pastor's should not have to be afraid of having his church taxed simply because he opposes a candidate who is fighting against Christian values. I, therefore, completely support this "Pulpit Initiative" from the Alliance Defence Fund:

Historically, churches have emphatically, and with great passion, spoken Scriptural truth from the pulpit about government and culture. Historians have stated that America owes its independence in great degree to the moral force of the pulpit. Pastors have proclaimed Scriptural truth throughout history on great moral issues such as slavery, women’s suffrage, child labor and prostitution. Pastors have also spoken from the pulpit with great frequency for and against various candidates for government office.

All that changed in 1954 with the passage of the “Johnson amendment” which restricted the right of churches and pastors to speak Scriptural truth about candidates for office. The Johnson amendment was proposed by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson, and it changed the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit churches and other non-profit organizations from supporting or opposing a candidate for office. After the Johnson amendment passed, churches faceda choice of either continuing their tradition of speaking out or silencing themselves in order to retain their church’s tax exemption. The Internal Revenue Service, in conjunction with radical organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have used the Johnson amendment to create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear for any church that dares to speak Scriptural truth about candidates for office or issues.

It is time for the intimidation and threats to end. Churches and pastors have a constitutional right to speak freely and truthfully from the pulpit – even on candidates and voting – without fearing loss of their tax exemption.We are seeking pastors to stand with us and once again reclaim their constitutional right to speak the Truth.

Learn more about how you can stand with us.

Pastor Stephen Boissoin responds

Yesterday I posted on Pastor Steve Boissoin and his trouble with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Pastor Boissoin responded to my post and has convinced me that he does not in any way advocate violence against gays and that he has been railroaded by this Canadian Human Rights Commission which is a serious threat to freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Canada. Pastor Boissoin, I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding you and the reports about you, and for adding to your anxiety with my post.

I've posted Pastor Boissoin's initial response below but you can read all of his responses by referring to yesterday's post. Pastor Boissoin wrote:

Friend,You have your facts totally wrong and you obviously haven't researched the story and due to such are guilty of the same type of irresponsibilty you accuse me of.Here is some information to consider.

1. The boy that was assaulted never went to the police.

2. There was no investigation and I never even heard a peep about the supposed assault from the police who I was involved with on almost a daily basis. I heard about it, like everyone else when it was in the newspaper over two weeks later.

3. The Publisher of the Red Deer Advocate informed me that the boy came to them about the story.

Think about this for a minute, while a heated gay debate is going on in my community a gay teen goes to the paper and claims he was beaten for being gay. He claims he is fearful but still allows the newspaper to publish his story (he provides no witnesses) and he does NOT go to the police. Think: he is ok with his story and his picture being in the paper, admittedly afraid but will not go to the police. There is simply no way to verify if this is even a valid story. This teen did not appear at the hearing as a witness...he did not ask a representative to appear on his behalf...he did not forward a written statement yet the complainant against me was allowed to use this unsubstantiated story as 'evidence.'

At the hearing there was a witness for the complainant, while a participant on a employability skills grant at our facility, she THOUGHT she heard me say that I knew who did it and speculated that I allowed them to continue participating in our program. Before God Almighty, this was absolutely false. I have never known who did it nor am I sure it ever happened.

The facts:1. I did not EVER know who committed the supposed assault and still do not know today. Nor do the police as my understanding is there was no ivestigation.

2. The witness may have overheard me guessing because afterall we were a at-risk
youth ministry and troubled street teens attended.

3. I was part of the inception of the RCMP's Restorative Justice. To accuse me of such a thing is absolutely ridiculous. Colleagues that know me laugh is disbelief.

4. I had a very good reputation with my community's social care organizations, Probation Officers, the Police (even judges), lawyers and was a voluteer for the RCMP. Most important, I had very good relationships with teens, gay or straight and every single one of them that knows me, knows that I would protect them from harm, regardless of their sexual orientation. Here is what the gay teens and young adults that I worked with think of me http://www.stephenboissoin.com/custom.html

5. I gave my life saving to at-risk youth outreach. I have performed teen memorial services and had over 25 teens live with me...gay and straight. I gave my whole heart to youth work. This accusation is pure garbage. Friend, don't just throw something up on your BLOG for the sake of appearing to be in the know about current events. You are way off on this one. The Human Rights Commission hearing was a farce and things that were accepted by them would suffer a different result in a real court of
law.....which is exactly where we are taking this.I encourage you to read the information on the following link
http://www.stephenboissoin.com/defamation.htmlI submit this to you with the hope
that you will be honourable and care for the TRUTH.Stephen Boissoinhttp://www.stephenboissoin.com

Minnesota churches harrassed

In a move that can only be described as guilty until proven innnocent:

"Officials in Ramsey County, Minnesota have sent letters to more than 800 churches and related entities there demanding various documents to justify the tax-exempt status of the ministries" (OneNewsNow).

Congress needs to put a stop to this harrassment of churches. Under the first amendment, churches should be able to preach pretty much whatever they want short of calling for violence or the overthrough of the governement. They should even be able to support Barack Obama without having their tax exempt status challenged! The Fair Tax would put an end to this harrassment.

Where is the ACLU when you need them?

Shutting down free speech at Smith College

In response to the lesbian activists who shut down a speech at Smith College, Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth writes:

Traditionalists and people of faith should take great courage from the homosexual side’s totalitarian tendencies. This is no “civil rights” movement but a sexual special interest lobby espousing — with all the assurance of a fundamentalist — doctrines that run counter to natural law, healthy living, and Judeo-Christian history. Which is another way of saying that they are at war with truth.

Communists and fascists censor advocates of democratic freedom and independent religion. Darwinists expel critics of evolution from the academy. Officially pro-homosexual governments in Britain, Canada and other countries persecute Christians who voice their Biblical belief that homosexuality is a changeable sin. And radical homosexualists here in the USA trample on the rights of those who dare question the tenets of their activist movement, which is all of 100-plus years old (German “sexologist” Magnus Hirschfeld).

Take heart: people confident in their ideas don’t storm opponents’ speeches. Rather, they listen intently to them, and then present another viewpoint to compete in the marketplace of ideas. In the long run, homosexualists can’t compete with truth, and they seem to know it.

Gays suppressing free speech

Another example of radical gays suppressing free speech.

Freedom of speech attacked on campus

Yesterday I received a newsletter entitled “Silencing Faith on Campus” which said:

Five years ago, Emily Brooker enrolled at Missouri State University (MSU) to study social work. For her, college was a time of spiritual growth and testing that climaxed during her last semester, when her professors ordered Emily’s class to become “lobbyists” for homosexual behavior by writing letters to the Missouri legislature, encouraging lawmakers to recognize adoption by same-sex couples. Emily respectfully asked for an alternative assignment, explaining to her professor that this one ran counter to her deep religious beliefs. The request was not well received. Her professor filed a ‘level 3’ grievance against Emily—the stiffest charge a faculty member can make against a student.”

“To answer the grievance, Emily was required to appear alone—no parents, no lawyer—before a department ‘ethics’ committee.”

The committee apparently had the authority to not only fail her in the class, but to keep her from graduating. Fortunately, the Alliance Defense Fund stepped and put a stop to it.

The newsletter also listed other examples of blatant anti-Christian attacks in our publically funded universities: “At Savannah State, members of a Christian club were put on suspension for washing each other’s feet during a worship service—school officials called that ‘hazing’ and harassment.” [Isn’t it interesting how some state colleges are using tax payer money to fund Muslim footwashing facilities, but when Christians do it, its is “hazing.”]

“At the University of Wisconsin—Superior, administrators denied InterVarsity Christian Felloswhip…access to campus facilities after accusing the members of violating the school ‘anti-discrimination’ policy by not allowing non-Christians to serve in leadership positions.” [Hmmm, I wonder if the brilliant administrators at the U. of Wisconsin required Muslim groups to have Christian leaders or for Atheist groups to have Muslim leaders, or for Democratic groups to have Republican leaders! How stupid—or hateful—can some people get?]

“At the University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire, university officials forbade RAs…to lead a Bible study—even with just one other person—in their own dorm room. (Beer parties were permitted.)”

The newsletter said that “In at least 230 public universities across the country, institutional policies are in effect that can sharply curtail Christian activity and limit the spread of the Gospel."

It is amazing that university officials, who undoubtedly think of themselves as tolerant and liberal-minded, can be so intolerant, hateful, and un-liberal. It is also amazing that we have such full-blown assault on freedom of speech and freedom of religion going on in state-run institutions, and yet the major media outlets are totally asleep at the switch.

Fortunately, Alliance Defense Fund is helping to fight such university fascism. If you give to charity, the Alliance Defense Fund is a worthy organization.

Expelled, the Ben Stein movie

I just finished watching Expelled, the movie by Ben Stein. The movie was sometimes funny and sometimes sober and powerful, but always provocative and informative.

One of my favorite parts was the interview with renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, in which Dawkins admitted that neither he nor any other scientists had a clue how life began, but he conceded that life could have began as a result of intelligent design from outer space—as long as we’re clear that such alien intelligent designers could not possibly be God.

Now that’s real science, isn’t it?

Please, take time to see this powerful movie. Bring your family and friends.

Most Arabs think violence OK

A recent poll of Arabs revealed that 55% thought violence was an appropriate response to offensive words (see LGF).

I would suggest that this mindset is fundamentally at odds with American ideals of free speech and that no one should be allowed to immigrate to the United States if they are known to hold such opinions.

Expelled, The Movie

Watch the trailer for "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed." Then go see the movie when it comes out.

Ohio State fascism

Last year Recliner Commentaries commented on the case of Scott Savage, an Ohio State University librarian who committed the unforgivable sin of recommending a book that was critical of homosexual radicals. He "was condemned publicly by a 21-0 faculty vote on March 13, 2006" and accused of sexual harrassment. Eventually he was cleared, but it has now come out that the faculty continued to harrass him and even tried to get him fired long after he was cleared (WorldNetDaily).

I'm usually hard on "liberals" but the time has come to recognize that this isn't liberalism. True liberalism recognizes the importance of free thought and open dialogue. What is happening at Ohio State is not "liberalism," it is closer to fascism!

Gay pride trumps Constitution

According to WorldNetDaily: “At issue is the arrest of several Christians at a "gay pride" event in Wisner Park in Elmira in 2007. Julian and Gloria Raven and several others entered the park to pray silently for the participants of the event celebrating homosexual behavior.”

Apparently in Elmira, NY, political correctness even trumps the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of religion! You can expect much more of this if Obama gets his way with hate crimes legislation.

UCC church under investigation

This morning FoxNews reported that the IRS is investigating a United Church of Christ for tax code violations because the church invited Barack Obama to speak in their church last year.

IRS interference in churches really needs to stop! As long as churches are not preaching violence (and I've never heard of one that did) the government needs to keep their hands off—even if those churches want to support (shudder) Barack Obama!

This is a matter of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It amazes me that those on the Left who come unglued when the government wants to wire tape terrorists, are so silent when the government investigates churches simply for supporting a political candidate!

The IRS, the Church and politics

My understanding may be inaccurate here, so I invite correction if I’m wrong. As I understand it, in the past, the IRS has threatened churches with removal of their tax exempt status if churches support particular candidates from the pulpit. Whether that is true or not, I know that many pastors are afraid of supporting particular candidates from the pulpit for just this reason.

If churches are in danger of loosing their tax exempt status for supporting a presidential candidate, why are so many churches allowing candidates--Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, etc.-- or their representatives (like Bill Clinton) to openly campaign from the pulpits of so many churches?

I think churches need to be very, very careful about endorsing a particular candidate or political party, but on the other hand, I think they also need to stop being so intimidated by the IRS and start preaching on the important political social issues of our day when those issues are directly addressed in the Bible.

I also think that unless a church is preaching violent overthrow of the government (I've never heard of a church doing that), the IRS needs to be prohibited by law from interfering in what is preached from the pulpit.

Democracy and freedom

President Bush's efforts to spread Democracy are misguided. He should be pushing to spread basic human rights, like freedom of speech, religion, etc., regardless of the form of government. The Maldives, for example, is a democracy and yet "The Maldivian constitutional assembly has passed an amendment stating that “none, except Muslims can be Maldivian citizens” (Dhimmi Watch). This will strip the citizenship away from Chritians and others who are currently Maldivian citizens. Even democracies can trample on or deny basic human rights.

Cowardice is killing freedom of speech

The more cowards like this MSNBC analyst let fear keep them from speaking out, the more we can kiss our freedom of speech goodby. Yet I suspect that cowardice is at least in part behind the fact that so many Leftists feel free to vent their vitriol against conservative Christians who, for example, may legally protest an art display defaming Jesus; while the same Leftists are so remarkably tolerant of radical Muslims who call for the murder of those who disrespect Muhammad.

It is only natural that someone would be afraid to speak out, but if they are part of the media and they let fear keep them from speaking out, they need to find other employment and let more courageous journalists fill their positions.

By contrast, see Michelle Malkin's blog today. Now that's courage :-)

Discrimination at Target

Debbie Schlussel just wrote a post about how Target bends over backwards to accommodate the religious beliefs of their Muslim employee’s, but that they recently fired a Christian employee for exercising his religious beliefs.

I think Target should be able to fire, or refuse to hire Muslim or Christian employees who will not or cannot do the job, but to accommodate Muslims while refusing to accommodate Christians, smacks of anti-Christian bigotry. Unfortunately, this anti-Christian discrimination seems to be a growing trend.

For example, while organizations like the ACLU have expended millions enforcing their flawed view of church-state separation, they seem to be turning a blind eye when it comes to the public funding of Islam, for example, at Savannah State or the University of Michigan.

While radical gay-lesbian advocates want to institute hate crimes laws to silence any opposition to their agenda, they apparently have no problem with the sick, anti-Christian “hate-speech” displayed in events like the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco.

While anti-Christian groups won their battle to keep Christian prayer out of public schools, they seem remarkably silent now that some schools are allowing Muslim prayer in public school.

While a Christian student was threatened with disciplinary action just for reading her Bible during lunch time, other schools in Oregon, Ohio, and California appear to be actively promoting Islam.

While the American Library Association screams bloody murder about any attempt by a misguided Christian to remove a book from a library, the ALA turns a blind eye when a librarian nearly looses his job for recommending a Christian book or when a teachers are forbidden to tell students about a Christian book located in their in the library!

It almost seems that in the eyes of the Left, hate speech and discrimination are terrible sins, unless committed against Christians.